What do they do with all the fish?

[Kyhl]

Keith Reeves is a biologist with the DNR. He says it was important to put the DNR's observations about hooking mortality to a rigorous test.

"Last year hooking mortality accounted for more than half of the total harvest," he says. "We wanted to find out if that number was accurate."

Debatable, but looks like Hooking mortality does make an impact.

from : MPR:article

That's a hyped up story. The real story is that there are very few keeper walleyes in ML so the lake is basically a C&R lake. Since it's a C&R lake it will have a higher ratio of hooking mortality vs harvest.

Silly waste of study dollars to show that hooking mortality is 50% of the total harvest. They should have used a real lake.

[amateurfishing]

Interesting Agronomist

Aqua farming for walleyes in Mn for releasing after specific time/size, would this guarantee higher retention rates? $$$$ better spent than anything else DNR does?

It is basically done with all other food we eat commecially speaking

Realistically speaking, dont the fish have less of a chance overall than ever b4? If there are more fisherman? Advanced technogy & fishing techniques? Rods,lures, sonar, almost can make it too along with wealth of info in seminars, internet, etc. The learning curve is quicker than ever b4.

[CaptainMusky]

That's a hyped up story. The real story is that there are very few keeper walleyes in ML so the lake is basically a C&R lake. Since it's a C&R lake it will have a higher ratio of hooking mortality vs harvest.

Silly waste of study dollars to show that hooking mortality is 50% of the total harvest. They should have used a real lake.

Agreed!

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Interesting Agronomist

Aqua farming for walleyes in Mn for releasing after specific time/size, would this guarantee higher retention rates? $$$$ better spent than anything else DNR does?

It is basically done with all other food we eat commecially speaking

Realistically speaking, dont the fish have less of a chance overall than ever b4? If there are more fisherman? Advanced technogy & fishing techniques? Rods,lures, sonar, almost can make it too along with wealth of info in seminars, internet, etc. The learning curve is quicker than ever b4.

Ummm..........we are already pretty much doing that look at stocking reports. Just depends how much product the people wanna pay for with taxes..

[amateurfishing]

Not taxes, but higher licenses or optional stamps?

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Not totally in disagreement. However, does this not show that C&R does make a noticeable impact. Sure this is maybe an extreme example, but it's happening.

[Kyhl]

Not totally in disagreement. However, does this not show that C&R does make a noticeable impact. Sure this is maybe an extreme example, but it's happening.

No. It does not show that.

I agree that there is hooking mortality. It happens. It is nowhere near 50% of allowable harvests on a regular lake. Reason would tell you that it is less than 10% if hooking mortality rates are 10%-30% per fish. Probably less than 7% of the total mortality.

I guess it could depend on your definition of noticeable. Is the problem in the 7% of total mortality or the 93% of the total mortality? The harvesters will tell you the 7 percenters are stealing from their ability to keep fish.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Not taxes, but higher licenses or optional stamps?

the DNR will only be able to do what funding allows them to. So what do people think its worth?

[Agronomist_at_IA]

Interesting how a DNR official can make a statement then when it doesn't fit the ideal you have it's rejected. Your numbers or figures on mortality are questionable. Not saying they aren't possible, but not believing it is that way all the time. Plenty of studies have shown a vast variation. I think mille lacs is an extreme example and maybe not the norm, but it appears like the DNR feel thats what is happening. I'm sure conditions and factors determine, but here is a pic of studies form 0% to 40%. Don't get me wrong a harvested fish is done a C&R has a chance. However don't act like C&R doesn't have a noticeable impact........even the DNR figures in the impact of it. Just an FYI, if C&R mortality is 10% it can still be 50% of harvested fish on a lake. Who would you believe a spokesman from the DNR or some unknown poster on the internet spouting stats without anything to back it up?

[Kyhl]

Just an FYI, if C&R mortality is 10% it can still be 50% of harvested fish on a lake. Who would you believe a spokesman from the DNR or some unknown poster on the internet spouting stats without anything to back it up?

I didn't disagree with that. Obviously they think it is 50% on ML. I wouldn't be surprised if it is higher because there are very few fish to harvest so the percent could easily be higher than 50%.

If the body of water was completely C&R then 100% would be hooking mortality. Goes without saying. Thanks for making my point that ML is a poor example to use in a study. Use a real lake with average supplies of walleyes and no slot. That rate would be much more telling.

Example, I was on ML last weekend. Boated 15 fish. Of those, two probably died, maybe up to four (only saw one small floater). Couldn't help it. Zero were kept. That means my hooking mortality was 100% of the mortality from my sample. Same thing the stupid DNR article is saying. Use a real lake with real limits and harvests and tell me the percent.

Now assume I'm a harvester and fished an extra day so that I would have something to put on the plate. I would have possibly boated 30 fish, had 4-8 dead from hooking mortality, plus 2 dead from harvest making my total 6-10 dead.

You can spin the numbers however you want. It's all speculation until there is a real study. The ML study is not real. It is skewed by special conditions that only pertain to ML.

I don't know what that chart is saying. Is it the percent of hooking mortality per fish released or the percent of hooking mortality as a percent of harvest? I would bet it is the former.

[CaptainMusky]

The ONLY reason they spent so much effort on the ML study was because they had to contend with "safe harvest" levels and they knew that managing to a specific safe harvest would require calculating hooking mortality since so many of the fish die when yanked from the deep water (majority of the floaters are due to this).

If they didnt have to worry about this safe harvest, then this study would likely have never been completed. At least not on ML.

[Kyhl]

The ONLY reason they spent so much effort on the ML study was because they had to contend with "safe harvest" levels and they knew that managing to a specific safe harvest would require calculating hooking mortality since so many of the fish die when yanked from the deep water (majority of the floaters are due to this).

If they didnt have to worry about this safe harvest, then this study would likely have never been completed. At least not on ML.

I always chuckle when I read ML and deep water in the same sentance.

[CaptainMusky]

LOL You do have a point. Deep by standards it is not (entire lake less than 40 feet), but I know what you mean.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

The point I was trying to make doesn't really have to do with ML, its that C&R does still impact a fishery. While it might not be has impactful has harvesting, it still does have an impact.

[CaptainMusky]

It may have an impact but not nearly as much as what it does on ML.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

thats fair!

[Kyhl]

And I didnt mean to say C&R didnt have an impact. I admitted that there is mortality. My 7% may be off by 100%. Maybe its 15%. That still leaves 85% to the harvesters. The way they cry you'd think I was taking food from their freezer

I would like to see a study that shows that number is all. Would put this all to bed.

[Agronomist_at_IA]

And I didnt mean to say C&R didnt have an impact. I admitted that there is mortality. My 7% may be off by 100%. Maybe its 15%. That still leaves 85% to the harvesters. The way they cry you'd think I was taking food from their freezer

I would like to see a study that shows that number is all. Would put this all to bed.

There is and will never be a solid number, to many variables. between temp, pressures, water quality, handling, its a throw out a best guess number. Studies basically show it's all over the board, and give some ground work for a range due to the type of environment things happen in. I'd compare it to the weather man predicting the weather........we have a clue can get fairly close.......but at the end of the day its a wild @$$ guess and its gonna be off.

I don't know of any people who harvest fish complaining about catch and release guys. I think the guys that harvest are just trying to point out that even though C&R guys aren't keeping fish that they still have an impact on a fishery which does cause some fish to be removed/harvested.

[delcecchi]

How does one know what is the correct thing, or the acceptable thing to do, other than by following the regulations?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

How does one know what is the correct thing, or the acceptable thing to do, other than by following the regulations?

One does what one determines is best for them and their conscience within the confines of the regulations.

Or, busybodies who think their conscience defines morality for everybody will let you know what is right and wrong.

That is the essence of this whole thread.

[Great Outdoors]

One does what one determines is best for them and their conscience within the confines of the regulations.

Or, busybodies who think their conscience defines morality for everybody will let you know what is right and wrong.

That is the essence of this whole thread.

AMEN!!!

[CaptJohnWis]

One does what one determines is best for them and their conscience within the confines of the regulations.

Heard recently at the fish cleaning station: "Sven, hurry up and finish cleaning those fish so we can go out and catch another limit."

"But Ole I'm going as fast as I can. We don't want those fish-hogs getting em all."

"Fish-hog" is so politically incorrect now days. One must now say "release challenged"

[Comit 2]

[CaptJohnWis]

If you are fishing C&R and using live bait, maybe you should rethink what you are really doing.

Very true. There are plenty of studies on gut hooked fish survival rates. I know Lindy Rig users that wait like 30 seconds before setting the hook! Circle hooks would greatly reduce gut hooking but few will use them.

The only thing I still use live bait for is sturgeon. I use circle hooks and they work great. Almost every one I catch is hooked in corner of mouth. This includes the bass, walleye, and suckers that also eat my nitecrawlers while sturgeon fishing.